Recently, I had the opportunity to drive across North America, from Olympia, Washington, to New York City. September—after the heat of the summer is past and before the biting cold of winter has bared its teeth—was a wonderful time to take a trip this year. I particularly remember the vast, open spaces of the Valentine National Wildlife Refuge in north-central Nebraska, where I had an opportunity to clamber up a sand dune and chew the relentless wind that swept over the ocean of grass. With just the faintest imagination, immense bison herds replaced the quietly feeding cattle spotted across the landscape.

Lynton Keith Caldwell was, to our knowledge, never a member of the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP), although he collaborated with a few NAEP members and Environmental Practice editorial board members at times and also appeared in Environmental Practice. His work as an academic and as a consultant to Congress has had profound impacts on the NAEP, however. Indeed, Caldwell's immense input into and co-writing of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the late 1960s created the conditions that made it necessary to organize the NAEP. When agencies first started to prepare Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), there were no professional associations dedicated to the problem solving that NEPA demanded. The NAEP brought together people struggling to prepare EISs in a scientifically sound and ethical manner.

The year was 1970. About this time, I had been designated chairman of Earth Day for my high school, although that was still many months away. One of my friends, Keith, was a member of the local John Birch society, which maintained that Earth Day was part of a global communist conspiracy to undermine American civil liberties. I countered that Earth Day was being sponsored by our own powerful Senator Scoop Jackson (D-WA), to which Keith simply replied that Jackson was also part of the grand conspiracy. Neither of us changed each other's minds, but surprisingly, we managed to remain friends.

Political scientist Lynton Keith Caldwell, a principal architect of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) who also is recognized as the “inventor” of the Environmental Impact Statement (or EIS, NEPA's “action forcing” provision), is widely regarded to be one of the twentieth century's most influential scholars in the fields of environmental policy, politics, law, and administration. Indeed, because of his groundbreaking work during the 1960s, he has been credited with founding the new subfield of environmental policy, politics, and administration studies within the wider scope of political science and public administration in the United States. In that period, Robert Bartlett and James Gladden believe that Caldwell “proposed the wholly new field of inquiry now known as environmental policy studies” and that he was “alone in focusing on the distinctive, integrative character of the concept ‘environment’ and its implications for politics, public policy, and public administration.” Harold and Margaret Sprout, the only other political scientists then pursuing a path similar to Caldwell's, share this opinion, writing in 1978, “The long neglect of environmental subjects by academic political scientists [has been] verified … The roster of an interdisciplinary conference, ‘Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth’ (1955), sponsored by the Wenner-Gren and National Science Foundations, included no political scientists. Two years later the conference ‘Future Environments of North America’ sponsored by the Conservation Foundation included only one, Professor Caldwell.”

Religion and Ecology is a relatively new field of study that has developed over a period of time. Within the last 20 years, it has seen more rapid development and garnered a great deal of interest and attention. In his book Ecology and Religion, David Kinsley describes the convergence of the two areas as (1) philosophical, theoretical, or structural, and (2) moral, ethical, or spiritual. Kinsley uses the term ecological spirituality to further define this area as ethical, moral, or religious tendencies relating to ecological issues. Great strides have been made in acknowledging that this is a credible and important academic and cultural area of study, and it is now being recognized as an academic field. Some academic institutions offer specialized studies through the departments of religion and anthropology, as well as in other academic programs. This article offers an explanation of the various aspects of the emerging field of Religion and Ecology (note that more attention will be paid to Christianity).

Nearly two decades ago, the United States Army began implementation of a method for developing and analyzing reasonable alternatives, as per the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The method was developed collaboratively by the Army's planners (including the authors) and environmental advocates in response to the needs for expeditious decision making (for the operational planners) and statutory compliance (for the environmental aspects). Fundamentally, the method painted a picture of the desired outcome in terms of quantifiable attributes (what should the end result ideally look like?). It then compared every possible alternative against those attributes, through a series of screening operations (will these alternatives, if selected, produce success?). Those alternatives remaining after the screening became the reasonable alternatives; these were the only alternatives that could produce successful outcomes if chosen. The method, initially developed for the stationing of Army units and often referred to as the “Hierarchy of Needs” screening process, is quick, understandable, and—most importantly—allows the rationalization of the decision-making process. Our article presents an overview of this novel process, which is well suited for dealing with a continuing problem facing federal agencies today—that of developing reasonable alternatives and rationalizing the outcomes for all stakeholders.

As broad-scale cumulative effects become increasingly evident across certain landscapes, science points to the need for broader understanding of ecosystem processes, functions, and interrelationships upon which to base our management strategies. The resultant shift to ecosystem-based management has led to landscape assessments much larger in geographic scope than traditional planning efforts. Broad-scale assessments not only provide context for establishing relative priorities within large geographic areas but also provide for stepping down their science findings through finer-scaled assessments that inform equivalent levels of planning and decision making. A systematic step-down process, such as one that was formalized for an innovative regional ecosystem project, allows managers to put local needs into broader perspective, ensuring more efficient investment of limited funding and personnel. This article provides a novel overview of the benefits of a step-down analysis and decision-making approach, describing a tiered assessment strategy linked to existing federal land use planning and decision hierarchies. Two particular assessment tools are summarized—one for mid-scale, or subbasin, assessments (400,000 to 1,000,000 hectares) and one for fine-scale, or watershed, assessments (5,000 to 50,000 hectares)—followed by an example of the use of tiered assessments to focus subsequent management attention.

The assessment of cumulative impacts is one of the most difficult tasks a NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) practitioner faces when preparing an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, and it recently has become an increasing focus area of legal challenges. Historically, federal agencies have a very poor track record in this litigation. This research examines 25 recent judicial opinions involving challenges to various NEPA documents' cumulative impact analyses, from the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Challengers were victorious on their claims of inadequate analysis in 60% of the cases decided in the 10-year analysis period. In recent years, the success rate for challengers has risen even higher, to victories in eight of 11 cases (72%). The main reasons federal agencies have lost these court challenges is because they failed to present any cumulative impact analysis whatsoever in their NEPA document; they left out obvious past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions; or they provided undocumented assertions that their projects would not cause any cumulative impacts. Four key lessons for practitioners emerge from the results: (1) Make sure to include a discussion of cumulative impacts for each resource and include all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions; (2) Do not make unsubstantiated claims about cumulative impacts; (3) Assessments do not have to be perfect but should be thorough and based on data and explained rationales; and (4) Do not tie assessments solely to programmatic or non-NEPA documents.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 implementing regulations require an assessment of cumulative impacts in reaching a determination regarding the potential significance of impacts associated with a proposed action. Analysis of cumulative impacts is one of NEPA's most challenging and complex requirements. With respect to the assessment of cumulative impacts, a strict regulatory interpretation of “significance” can lead to a paradox (the Cumulative Impact Paradox, or “Paradox”). A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), by its very definition, states that an action will not result in a significant effect, including a cumulatively significant impact. But because many environmental resources have already sustained significant cumulative impacts, a logical paradox can arise in which a strict interpretation of the regulatory requirements leads to the conclusion that many federal activities are technically ineligible for FONSIs and therefore require preparation of Environmental Impact Statements. A strict interpretation of “significance” can lead to such a conclusion, even in cases where the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed activity may be relatively nonsignificant. This Paradox must be resolved, if the analysis of cumulative impacts is to be practically and effectively integrated into federal decision making. This article presents a method or tool referred to as the Significant Departure Principle for resolving the aforementioned Paradox. Emphasis is placed on assessing environmental resources that have already sustained cumulatively significant impacts.

In a previous study of hydropower project relicensing, the author suggested that a consultative, consensus model of policy making, based on extensive negotiations between stakeholder interests, holds the greatest potential to achieve broadly conceived public policy goals. This article examines the effort of Avista Utilities to relicense five hydropower facilities on the Spokane River in Idaho and Washington using an Alternative Licensing Process, or ALP. This effort was patterned after an earlier one on the Clark Fork River in western Montana, where Avista was able to negotiate with a number of different stakeholders a consensus agreement that included changes in facility operation and mitigation of adverse ecological effects. Yet in the Spokane River case, the effort to reach a consensus agreement was unsuccessful. This article argues that irreconcilable differences over the water resource created a multiple-level conflict between stakeholders (Avista, upstream property owners, downstream users) to protect or challenge the established distribution of costs and benefits. The article suggests that a consultative model of policy making may not be appropriate in all cases and concludes with a brief examination of other models of relicensing policy making—the Integrated Licensing Process, the traditional model, and the political model.

Environmental Decision Making and Risk Management: Selected Essays by Ian Langford. R. K. Turner, S. Georgiou, and I. J. Bateman, eds. 2004. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA. 307 pp. $115 hardback.

Environmental risk assessment and risk management have always been hampered by three types of uncertainty: the external or objective uncertainty inherent in the limits of scientific knowledge, the internal or subjective uncertainty introduced by cultural or institutional bias, and the lack of precision in the analytical tools at our disposal. These uncertainties, in turn, have hindered efforts at policy development and, some would argue, made the public skeptical of program proposals based on such analyses. This collection of essays, authored or coauthored by Ian Langford of the University of East Anglia, breaks new ground in both the treatment of introduced bias and the improvement of analytical methods, thereby greatly strengthening the analytical underpinnings of public policy.

Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship with Animals. M. H. Bernstein. 2004. University of Illinois Press, Champaign. 207 pp. $35 cloth, $25 paperback.

This is perhaps the most difficult book I've read in my whole life. It is certainly the most difficult review. The title, in part, will clue you in as to why this book is such a challenge to read and review. Our Tragic Relationship with Animals is a book with more controversy, baggage, and emotion than most readers of Environmental Practice may have encountered with any other topic. I am reminded of Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Pirsig, you may recall, was institutionalized after he allowed his mind to chase too many rabbits as he pursued a definition of quality in his own version of Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland. This current book is a bit like a literary maze … trail after trail is explored and each subsequent dead-end encountered in search of common justifications for harm to animals. The book is on a maddening search-and-destroy mission. Working as if in a furious video game, the villainous components of historical and contemporary philosophy are vanquished! The author might declare, “Mission accomplished”; this reviewer would reply, “Not so fast!”

The Aesthetics of Everyday Life. Andrew Light and Jonathan M. Smith, eds. 2005. Columbia University Press, New York. 224 pp. $24.50 paperback.

The Aesthetics of Everyday Life is a collection of 11 philosophical essays, five of which are pertinent for this journal's readership. It is a book more concerned with theory than with practice. Effort is made in this volume to provoke discussion and perhaps inaugurate a new field, or at least sub-field, of aesthetics.

Documentation Strategies for Environmental Writers: Entries Reprinted from the Franklin Covey Style Guide (1997). L. H. Freeman and The Shipley Group, Inc. 2004. The Shipley Group, Woods Cross, UT. 126 pp., spiral bound.

Environmental professionals find writing skills an increasingly important part of their work, and for that work this book is an essential guide. It comes from a well-known consulting firm, The Shipley Group. The book is a ready desk and travel companion: spiral bound, 8½ × 11, and only 126 pages (including an index).

Sustainability on Campus: Stories and Strategies for Change. Peggy F. Barlett and Geoffrey W. Chase, eds. 2004. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 327 pp. $23.95 paperback.

Will the 21st century see a transformation in American institutions, leading to a more sustainable future? Will our universities play a leading role in this “sustainability” movement? The authors of Sustainability on Campus argue in the affirmative that higher education has the potential to be the leverage point for change. Barlett and Chase attempt to justify their optimism through 16 stories in which 21 activist authors document their personal efforts to engage their respective campuses. The stated goal of this collection of narratives is to provide readers interested in greening their own universities not only with ideas, values, options, and theoretical perspectives but also with practical tools, skills, and motivation.

Contributors.